IA100972015

For the Appellant: Ms J Norman, Counsel instructed by Sterling and Co Solicitors

This matter comes before me pursuant to permission having been granted by First-tier Tribunal Judge Osborne dated 4 January 2016. The appeal relates to a decision by Designated Judge of the First-tier Tribunal S J Pacey promulgated on 20 August 2015. The Judge dismissed the appeal against the Respondent's decision refusing his application for variation of leave on the basis of family life with his wife.

The background to the Respondent's decision dated 5 March 2015 was that the Appellant's wife's income, said to be £23,905, was not proved in accordance with the requirements of the Immigration Rules. Additionally it was said that the as there were no British children then there were no insurmountable obstacles to the relationship continuing from India or by the Appellant seeking to re-enter the United Kingdom by making an application for entry clearance whilst his wife, his sponsor, remained in the United Kingdom.

Ms Norman said that the grounds of appeal which had been relied upon were broad ranging but there were material errors of law in respect of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and in respect of section 117 of the Nationality Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. She said that she had spoken to Mr Harrison and there was not a huge difference between them.

Ms Norman said that the Appellant's wife did meet the requirements to prove her £23,000 income. The issue was whether cash payments could be accepted. This was referred to at paragraph 13 of the Judge's decision. The concession that the income threshold requirements were not met then was wrongly made. All of the documents were there. It was therefore asserted that the income from Subway should have been taken into account.